Communicated on 16 December 2013

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 51506/13 Suzana OREL and others against Croatia lodged on 6 August 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants Ms Suzana Orel (“the first applicant”), Mr Mislav Orel (“the second applicant”) and Mr Silvio Orel (“the third applicant”) are Croatian nationals who were born in 1966, 1995 and 1997 respectively, and live in Zagreb. They are represented before the Court by Ms L. Kušan , a lawyer practising in Ivanić -Grad.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

The first applicant married H. in 1993. The second and third applicants were born of the marriage. H. and the applicants lived in the first applicant ’ s flat until 2002.

On 3 November 2002 H. went to work and has never returned home. After couple of days, the first applicant found out that H. moved to USA.

1. Proceedings concerning the divorce of the first applicant and H.

On 28 January 2003 the Zagreb Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Zagrebu ) divorced the marriage of the first applicant and H., who was ordered to pay 400 United States dollars (USD) a month for the maintenance of the second and third applicants.

From January 2003 until 31 May 2006 H. was paying the maintenance instalments irregularly. In that period, he p aid the aggregate amount of USD 7,600. He stopped paying the maintenance in June 2006 and is not an owner of any property in Croatia.

2. Criminal proceedings against H.

On 14 October 2004 the first applicant lodged a criminal complaint against H. with the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Zagrebu ), on account of the breach of maintenance duty ( povreda dužnosti uzdržavanja ).

On 3 June 2005 the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office lodged an indictment ( optužni prijedlog ) against H. with the Juvenile Department of the Zagreb Municipal Court.

On 24 October 2005 the Zagreb Municipal Court discontinued the proceedings since the State Attorney ’ s Office dropped the charges against H.

On 30 April 2008 the first applicant lodged another criminal complaint against H. with the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office on the same grounds as before.

The Zagreb Municipal Court conducted a trial in absentia and found H. guilty as charged on 27 September 2010. H. was given a suspended sentence of seventeen months ’ imprisonment with a four-year probation period, with the additional condition of future regular payment of maintenance instalments and payment of USD 25,400 of debt to the applicants.

Upon the State Attorney ’ s appeal, on 28 September 2011 the Zagreb County Court ( Županijski sud u Zagrebu ) amended the sentence and set a two-year deadline for the payment of debt.

On 4 October 2011 the applicant lodged a writ for revocation of the suspended sentence ( prijedlog za opoziv uvjetne osude ) with the Zagreb Municipal Court.

On 4 June 2013 the Zagreb Municipal Court schedu led a hearing for 15 July 2013. That hearing was adjourned since the notice of the hearing had not been served on H.

B. Relevant international law

Convention on the Rights of the Child

The relevant part of Article 27 provides:

Article 27

“ ...

4. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to secure the recovery of maintenance for the child from the parents or other persons having financial responsibility for the child, both within the State Party and from abroad. In particular, where the person having financial responsibility for the child lives in a State different from that of the child, States Parties shall promote the accession to international agreements or the conclusion of such agreements, as well as the making of other appropriate arrangements.”

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain, under Article 6 of the Convention, about the inability to enforce a final judgment in their favour.

They also complain, under Article 8 of the Convention, about the failure of the State to enforce the payment of maintenance instalments for children.

Finally, they complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, about the failure of the State to protect their proprietary interests.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, is the period in which the applicants have been unable to enforce a final judgment in their favour, given the particular circumstances of the case, excessive?

2 . Has there been a violation of the applicants ’ right to respect for their family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, what are the positive obligations of the State authorities in facilitating the applicants ’ recovery of their maintenance claims, under national or international law? Have they been complied with?

3. Has there been a violation of the applicants ’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?